DC Nightlife Noise

Media

Sep 10 Nightclub
noise
Dupont Current editorial

If you own a nightclub, it’s
understandable that you’d want to be able
to take the party outside onto your roof or patio. Not only does it let
you accommodate more patrons, but many customers will also value being
able to revel out in the fresh air.
But if you own a home that backs to such a nightclub, it’s
understandable that you’d want live entertainment and other amplified
music to stay
indoors. Such is the clash of interests that is found in many bustling
mixed-use areas — and that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
recently sought to address regarding Ozio Martini and Cigar Bar in
southern Dupont Circle.
In that case, the board wisely sided with nearby Jefferson Row condo
owners. Its order prohibits Ozio from having bands perform on the roof,
requires the bar to keep the roof closed when the club features
entertainment, and
bans amplified sounds that can be heard inside a residence.
In the District, a license to serve alcohol comes with the condition
that an establishment not disrupt the peace, order and quiet of the
surrounding
community. This doesn’t preclude loud nightclubs from operating. In
this case, all the neighbors asked was that the noise be kept indoors
rather than
shouted from the rooftops.
Ozio is asking the board to reconsider its ruling, noting that both its
property and Jefferson Row are on commercially zoned land. This exempts
Ozio from restrictions on music that’s audible beyond an
establishment’s
property.
But the board’s order already accommodates more noise from Ozio than
city law allows near residentially zoned areas. The board specified
only that the club’s amplified sounds shouldn’t be heard inside a home
— as
opposed to just anywhere outside of its property. This strikes a fair
and
appropriate balance, acknowledging Ozio’s commercial zoning without
disregarding
neighbors’ rights to some degree of peace, order and quiet simply on
the basis of their homes’ land-use designation.
More will be needed, though, to protect the vitality of D.C.’s
increasing number of mixed-use neighborhoods for all users. Activists
in various
communities have called for more consistent enforcement of noise
regulations, which we agree is a critical first step. In the Ozio case,
the alcohol
board paid little heed to noise evidence from either the establishment
or the
community’s DC Nightlife Noise Coalition because neither party
conducted legally sufficient tests.
This speaks to the need for more
D.C.
government involvement in noise issues.

Feb 19. Dupont
Current
lead editorial on noise in mixed-use neighborhoods:

Making
some noiseBefore any D.C.
establishment is
granted a license to sell alcohol, it
must demonstrate that its activities won’t disturb the peace, order and
quiet of nearby residents. These clear legal entitlements are backed up
by a
noise law
that caps nighttime volume at 60 decibels.
What is less clear is how rigidly these rules can be applied in a
vibrant
mixed-use area — such as southern Dupont Circle, where some residents
recently formed the D.C. Nightlife Coalition to push for more
enforcement
of noise rules. Many alcohol-serving establishments and their
supporters
argue that the standards are unreasonable and that noise complaints are
mis-directed toward clubs or bars rather than the general hubbub of
city
living.
While there may indeed be cases in which residents are pinning the
blame on the wrong noise source, we have little doubt that there are
times
when establishments produce illegal noise. The Dupont residents
reportedly
measured a 90-decibel roar coming from the outdoor areas of clubs and
bars.
And there is good reason that residents are supposed to be guaranteed
peace, order and quiet: Frequent sleepless nights are a serious
quality-of-life
issue, and one that could also jeopardize property values in what
should be
highly desirable sections of town. Yes, a nightclub that constantly
nags patrons to kindly keep their
voices
down would struggle to stay in business. But adequate soundproofing is
a cost of doing business, and it’s one some establishments appear to
dodging.
That said, there must be some compromises. A
mixed-use community
encompasses what its name promises — a mix of uses. Such areas must be
hospitable to both residential and commercial uses. Just like bars and
clubs
can’t expect to blast loud music with impunity, their neighbors can’t
expect
to emulate the hushed stillness of Crestwood, Spring Valley or the
suburbs.
D.C. regulators must make more of an effort to monitor nightlife noise
and require fixes when clear violations occur. Doing so will help
clarify
expectations — and is necessary to make mixed-use neighborhoods work.

Feb 9. Columnist Mark Lee of the Washington Blade and Logan Circle
neighborhood, commented on a Feb 9 Washington Post article on
moratoriums in the District. They are the beast no one will
drive a
stake through the heart. We replied that:

Thank
you for
commenting on the moratorium question, We agree that a moratorium is a
blunt tool for obtaining appropriate limits on competitive
capitalism. But once a community government decides on a
limitation through democratic law-making, those limits should be
respected. DC long ago decided on laws against unlimited
sound on
nearby residents, regardless of how they got there. We are campaigning
for voluntary limits on noise/sound by alcohol businesses onto
residents, and enforcement of legally imposed limits on external sound
in the absence of voluntary limitation. We hope you agree with the
principle that laws are to be respected as much as we respect your
right to advocate for different laws.

Feb 6. The residents join the comment scrum at City Paper:

As
they say
for examinations: Read the Problem. The Dupont residents are asking for
only one thing in their campaign - amplified music to be contained
within the business. To get that result, they appeal to the enforcement
mechanisms that were put in law for that purpose. All the other usual
noises of a busy city are accepted: traffic, sirens, noisy drunks, auto
horns, all those things recognized by law and custom as part of city
life. And so far, the businesses that the residents have talked with as
part of their license renewal process are co-operating in concert with
their desire to be good neighbors. If the rest of them also co-operate,
there will be no need for intense enforcement. If they do not
cooperate, the residents will appeal to the Alcohol Control Board to
impose such condition for the license, or to the police to enforce the
law's intended noise control for residential or SP zones, no matter how
close to a commercial zone. The city cannot have it both ways: to
induce residential building with residential protections and commercial
establishments free to violate those residential protections. In this
case, the only protection being pursued is amplified music outside the
business.

Feb 5. Howling
at the moon:
Dupont group decries noise is Mark Lee's piece in the Washington Blade.
He suggests, of
course, that noise is an unavoidable consequence of city living in or
near a commercial zone. And
that if the "The new 'anti-noise' gaggle" wins their case, the City
Council might change the
law to force new construction standards of residences near commerce.
Which is possible but would pit the developers against the nightlife in
a fight the politicians would not enjoy. Meanwhile, the DC law still
forbids more than 60dB(A). And at least five responsible nightlife
businesses have already taken steps to contain their sound. It's not a
contest between clubs and the neighbors when there is no profit in
clubs' creating outside noise. It's more a question of the businesses'
handling their externalities rather than dumping them on the public.
Responsible businesses do so, which is the purpose of the DC noise
control laws.
Note: two comments posted on Lee's piece: 1. by jerry
- If
the noise bothers you, pack up and move to the burbs; 2. .by Shaw - If
you don’t want to follow the law, pack up and close down your nuisance
nightclub.

Feb 5. Greater Greater Washington repeated the City
Paper
piece with the comment that at
least
one ANC commissioner thinks they might expect too much quiet given
where they live. It also repeated the public
comments that
ridiculed an expectation of quiet in such a zone. We expect
and
accept noise from sirens, auto horns, heavy traffic, drunks shouting,
occasional loud scuffles between inebriates, and even two
murders. But the open-air high volume rock music
with a
strong bass beat goes beyond reasonable expectation into physical harm
to residents which is why the District has a law that forbids it.
The clubs can
play all the bass beat music they want, at any volume they
want -
INSIDE - as long as it stays inside.

Feb 5. The comment storm continues at City Paper
between those
understand the problem and those who treat all noise as
unavoidable. Abigail Nichols of the Nightlife Noise
Coalition, and ANC2B Commissioner with fifty-plus alcohol licenses in
her district, answered some of the comments with:

Thank
you to our
supporters, please join our coalition at DCNightlifeNoise.com. Our
critics have opinions but too few facts. They don’t seriously deal with
our white paper. There are good reasons noise laws apply everywhere.
Too much noise injures humans – and deafness isn’t the only bad result.
DC law realistically allows noise to be somewhat higher in commercial
zones than in residential areas, but Club Central noise greatly exceeds
even commercial zone limits. Besides, the 40-year-old Palladium isn’t
in a commercial area, and areas adjacent to commercial zones are
protected. The Palladium’s mix of students, working singles, couples
with young children, and others who have aged in place is just what our
zoning envisions. ... and BTW, neither the Mad Hatter nor the
Big
Hunt is a problem bar.

Feb 4, 2014. Washington
City Paper
published a story about our campaign
with the headline, "Citizen Vigilante Group Forms to Combat Noise in
Dupont," by Perry Stein. The story quotes ANC2B Commissioner O'Connor
as recognizing that the complaint is valid, but adding, "I am not sure
that the views they represent are the views of all the Dupont Circle
[neighborhood]." We can assure Mr. O'Connor that anyone
living
within hearing of this unlawful noise wants to it to be turned
down. We also take exception to the use of the term
vigilante,
because it suggests that we are operating outside of law.
Quite
the opposite, we merely are seeking enforcement of existing law. What
we want to know is, what are the views of Mayor Gray? Will he
enforce existing law?

On
the ruined
wedding reception, (the
subject of so many letters
to the editor): It’s clear to me that
Mr. Greene needs to find himself
a place out at the far end of Loudoun
County, with lots of acres, so
that he is entirely surrounded by
nothing and has no neighbors to
disturb his precious silence. City
living means having neighbors,
and on occasion hearing them.
Anyone who can’t deal with this
has no business living in the city.]

but on one point I
must take issue. He says that Mr.
Greene should move to the outer
reaches of Loudoun County — a
terrible fate to wish on someone —
because he complained about the
noisy wedding party.
When we choose to live in a
city, we are choosing to live in a
community. In that case we must all
be willing to give up some of our
private rights so we do not impose
on the other residents of our community.
Dog owners, mostly, clean up
after their pets. Drivers, again mostly,
stop for red lights even if no
police officer is in view. Homeowners
put their trash out on trash days.
The community by law and regulation
has decided that residents
have a right to not be disturbed in
their homes at certain times. In the
evenings the time decided on was
10 p.m. This wasn’t an arbitrary
decision by Mr. Greene; it reflects
the wishes of the community.
If Mr. Huckenpöhler thinks that
noisy parties should be permitted
later in the evenings or that noisy
construction projects should start
earlier than 7 a.m., then he should
get out there and agitate for it. My
guess, based on having lived in the
city 45 years, is that he would be on
a very lonely crusade.
[by Jerry Barrett
Washington, D.C.]